...so by now you've read Electronic Arts stinging dismissal of controversial attorney Jack Thompson's offer to help it acquire Take Two Interactive. We've just received from Thompson this copy of his response to EA:

I have in the last few days been contacted by a company with whom Take-Two does business. This company is now my client.

My client informs me that Take-Two has breached a substantial contract with it. It appears based upon what my client tells me that this is how Take-Two does business within the industry. This does not surprise me, as I have seen this same company up-close for a number of years. But it is surely gratifying to get corroboration of my observations, out of the blue, from a corporate entity which has been stiffed by Take-Two and which must take legal action, it seems, to get recompense. How sweet.

If you all at EA want to pursue a purchase of Take-Two without fully knowing what is “out there” in the form of liabilities, posed by my client and others, of your take-over target, you got [sic] right ahead. I’m sure EA’s shareholders will be impressed with your lack of “due diligence” exhibited first by your “don’t help us, Mr. Thompson” and now your anticipated “we don’t want to know about contractual liabilities of Take-Two” posture. Maybe the new corporate logo of EA should incorporate an ostrich...

Your corporate approach to due diligence exhibits the type of circle-the-wagons acumen that is leading the video game industry to the federal regulation that ESA’s own leaked poll indicates 65% of Americans want.

Jack has done it again. It's difficult to comprehend such a level of stupidity! Forgive me, but I am a bit out of the loop when it comes to the "Poll" he mentions. :-/ Is it real? Is it yet another "fact" Jack's made up? Either way Video Games are art, and no one has any business censoring art.

So let me get this straight. John Bruce offered to help EA aquire T2. EA refuses his "help". He claims to have not received that rejection letter. He threatens to cause problems for EA for not accepting his help.

I think Iam on the level here.

I bet his idea of "helping" EA was to use this "client" of his to force T2 into considering the aquisition. But since EA doesn't want his "help" he is going to use this "client" to threaten EA into accepting his help.

I wonder if John Bruce fully disclosed to his "client" that he's facing disbarment and may very well not be able to function as their attorney for much longer.

You'll notice how he doesn't mention his "client's" name.

Too bad the rules and regulations of law don't require an attorney to divulge the identity of a "client" that the attorney envokes while making legal threats.

But I guess that's something else John Bruce would oppose. After all, if he couldn't make legal threats against someone without anything to actually back up his threats, he'd claim it was a violation of his Rights as a Christian (much like the lawsuit he had brought claiming the Florida Bar was trying to prevent him from using his religious beliefs in the performance of his job, which the lawsuit failed of course).

So did jacks' client waive attorney client privilage? Cause if they haven't Jack would be breaking the law by communicating his clients knowledge to EA or to anyone else. What a brilliant student of law this guy is.

Jack has done it again. It's difficult to comprehend such a level of stupidity! Forgive me, but I am a bit out of the loop when it comes to the "Poll" he mentions. :-/ Is it real? Is it yet another "fact" Jack's made up? Either way Video Games are art, and no one has any business censoring art.

Ummm... does Jacko realize that EA is the publisher of Counter-Strike? Since Jacko also has a boner for Counter-Strike you would think that he would have something against EA too. Of course logic and consistency are not things that Jacko is known for...

"You’ll notice how he doesn’t mention his “client’s” name.... Too bad the rules and regulations of law don’t require an attorney to divulge the identity of a “client” that the attorney envokes while making legal threats."

My guess? It's a tiny software company that T2 out-sourced some work to. Or a service provider of some kind. Every large company has it's skeletons in the closet. Remember EA's pay scandal?

@vellocet

He's not allowed to take action against T2 with regards to video games or their content. "breach of contract" would likely fall outside that. Then again, read on.

I seriously doubt it's a big client if he managed to secure them so quickly. Anyone who mattered has their own legal beagles to handle this. For JT to pick someone up, it must be either a very small (think garage) firm, an individual (maybe someone who was fired), or ... he's posturing by fudging "breach of contract" out of "they promised not to sell to kids"...

How does a raving lunatic like Thompson become a lawyer who is obviously making enough money to spend all his time filing nutball lawsuits, while hard working sane people can barely scape by? Perhaps I'm living in the wrong state.

Time to put on my Crazy hat and start practicing law in Florida suing anyone who does not crack their eggs from the little end first.

His so called "client" could be anything, such as local coffeeshop near T2 office. As long as that "client" and T2 have some kind of business connection of some kind.
Then again, it could be something that is all in Jackos head :D

Generally speaking, when you write a demand letter for a client, you clearly state what caused the problem and then you demand redress. The last part of a demand letter deals with the consequences of not meeting the demand.

If this client exists and if there is a valid demand - the one time that Jack gets to write a legitimate "or else" letter and he blows it.

Of course, an actual demand letter cannot be published so there is no client and there is no demand to be met.

He never has to cite anything for it to be true, didn't you know that? He doesn't have to give references or cite studies as long as HE knows they exist and prove his point.

@MRK@
"How does a raving lunatic like Thompson become a lawyer who is obviously making enough money to spend all his time filing nutball lawsuits, while hard working sane people can barely scape by?"

Hi wife is also a lawyer, a normal one who does her job properly instead of sending out nonsensical lawsuits based on perceived persecution, and who I imagine has never written insulting letters and press releases regarding those who she has opposed in court.

This is patently false. EVERYONE in the gaming industry has heard of this idiot and they all know of his reputation and, unfortunately for him, of his current predicament. No-one in their right mind would take him on as a lawyer. That would be like signing a guy who's legs and arms are going to be amputated as your new quarterback.

[...] Gamepolitics.com are reporting a new statement from Jack Thompson in regards to both Take-Two and Electronic Arts. His saber rattling has begun against the rebuttal: I have in the last few days been contacted by a company with whom Take-Two does business. This company is now my client. [...]

This guy acts like a child. He takes extreme offense to everything that people say to him, and uses that to go on some ridiculous tirade against them. Didn't he think EA was supporting porn in The Sims 2 years ago? And then didn't he want to help EA 2 days ago? And now he thinks they should add an ostrich to their logo because they don't want his help?

I know this has been mentioned in other stories but I can't help but be reminded of that South Park episode "Manbearpig". I can just imagine JT acting like Al Gore in that episode "But Take-Two is trying to turn all our kids into Manchurian Candidates and selling murder simulators and I'm trying to tell everyone and no one is listening to me and I'm being super cereal!"

Daniel Lewis: The only thing said i disagree with is the final quote on Men's experiences are seen to be universal but women are gendered,though doesn't anita say that games with male protagonists are male power fantasies,so in turn both are gendered03/31/2015 - 1:08pm

Daniel Lewis: i found the video to be much better than any of the TvW series and it's about time the positive women are put in the spotlight03/31/2015 - 1:06pm

Daniel Lewis: So feministfrequency released a positive female character video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXmj2yJNUmQ03/31/2015 - 1:05pm

Daniel Lewis: I think the guy who made the direct leak said it was an april fools joke when a real one was announced03/31/2015 - 12:43pm

MaskedPixelante: No way Nintendo would let information like that get out. Remember, they shut down a memoir about the localization of Earthbound by enforcing a 20 year old NDA on the author.03/31/2015 - 12:42pm

james_fudge: Conster: the larger issue is that Ind. does not protect LGBTQ+ people under state law03/31/2015 - 12:11pm

PHX Corp: @MP I think it is confirmed(not an April Fools joke) http://mynintendonews.com/2015/03/31/nintendo-direct-confirmed-for-wednesday-april-1st/03/31/2015 - 12:00pm

Conster: Apparently Pence intends to amend SB101 so denying service isn't allowed - without explicitly protecting LGBT+ and while still allowing the many other things you can get away with now if it's motivated by your religious beliefs.03/31/2015 - 11:53am

MaskedPixelante: http://mynintendonews.com/2015/03/30/rumour-nintendo-direct-on-april-1st/ A supposed full leak of tomorrow's Nintendo Direct, so you can all laugh and laugh about how wrong it is.03/31/2015 - 11:35am

PHX Corp: http://kotaku.com/why-a-tekken-7-character-is-being-called-a-phoney-1694724959 Why a Tekken 7 Character Is Being Called a Phoney03/31/2015 - 10:08am

Michael Chandra: Argh. Anyway, I'm glad that move was made. Wonder if it counts, can he just declare it like that? 03/31/2015 - 9:27am

Zen: Conster - Good, it's a BS law that exists to just allow hate basically. Glad people are standing up to it. Sadly it should never have passed to begin with though.03/31/2015 - 8:39am

Zen: Nintendo Direct tomorrow it seems. Funny it will be on April 1st lol. http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/03/31/nintendo-direct-announced-for-tomorrow03/31/2015 - 8:38am

MaskedPixelante: http://www.destructoid.com/chris-charla-would-love-to-see-no-man-s-sky-on-xbox-one-289761.phtml Apparently Microsoft's famous "parity clause" doesn't apply if they thing your game will make them tons of money.03/31/2015 - 8:00am

Conster: Basically, he's claiming there's a state statute that allows him to invoke section 2 of SB101 and be exempt from it.03/31/2015 - 5:48am

Conster: "..military service veteran status, and any breach of this policy shall continue to be considered a material breach of the relationship with the City."03/31/2015 - 5:09am